Hello all, I will be arguing for the legalization of marijuana for medical and recreational use in the United States (to at least a level equivalent to that of alcohol's). I will begin by presenting all my points and their subset points for legalization. I respectfully request for my opponent to refute them, then I will challenge their arguments. This is simply to establish a sense of organization, please and thank you. Also feel free to add any points you may have or to not address any of mine that you choose (if you don't however, I will assume you either acknowledge/agree with my point or cannot refute it). I do not wish to focus on other drugs besides cannabis although I intend to mention them for argumentative purposes if necessary. If you do not understand anything I say, simply ask and I will clarify, no need to be rude.

My Points1.There will be little to no negative effects to the country/society from marijuana's legalization.a) Marijuana is not addictive.b) It is physically impossible to overdose on marijuanac) Marijuana's supposed "negative" effects, whether long term or short, are negligible, and many of which cannot credibly be declared true.d) The logic of the gateway theory is fundamentally flawed and therefore it cannot be truee) Marijuana's intoxicating effects are not harmful to the users or others within itself (i.e. calmness, changes to mood or perception), and therefore responsibility is placed on the user (although it would be anyway).f) Youth's access to marijuana will not be increased by legalization but will in fact be decreasedg) Assuming it is true that marijuana's psychoactive potency has increased since the 1900's, it is an irrelevant fact seeing as how the negative effects remain unchanged.

2. There will be a plethora of positive effects resulting from marijuana's legalization.a) The revenue saved and made from marijuana's legalization will be substantial and much needed to the countryb)The medical benefits (known and to be known) of marijuana would benefit many of its citizens, saving lives and creating a greater quality of life for manyc) Legalization will allow regulation of cannabis and therefore a greater degree of damage control. (i.e. preventing child access, reducing drugged driving)d) Legalization will improve society by ending prosecution and punishment of responsible, contributing citizens simply for committing the victimless crime of consuming cannabis for medical or recreational purposes.e) Gang violence and crime revolving around marijuana will be greatly decreased.f) Legalization's resulting industry would create jobs and generally benefit the national economy.g) Marijuana education would be healthy for both youth and adults (because now the only education is lies unless you dig deeper).

3.Marijuana Prohibition altogether is a colossal failure.a)The whole purpose of cannabis prohibition is to prevent use nationwide, yet, cannabis use is still very prevalent.b)Because of point a, the adverse societal effects of marijuana (however minuscule) are in effect despite it's prohibition, ergo prohibition is purposeless.c)marijuana prohibition is exactly the same as the 20's alcohol prohibition save for the failure to end it.

4. It is not the governments place to tell us how to live, but to protect the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness for the nation.a) Proof of the government's failure to do this is how a constitutional amendment was needed to sign alcohol prohibition into law (and is now being used to prohibit marijuana). This means that the views/values this nation was built on differ from those that allow/support prohibition.

I am morphing my opponent's two arguments for one full refutation."There will be little to no negative effects to the country/society from marijuana's legalization."

"There will be a plethora of positive effects resulting from marijuana's legalization."

This is completely flat wrong. My opponent divides this into several lettered catergories and I will broadly attack these because some of my refutations attack several of them at once. First, my opponent says that marijuana is not addictive, but lets look at history. Back in the 1800s when most drugs were legal, marijuana was clearly very addictive. Then there was the experiment in Alaska. There law restricted anyone under 19 from not using marijuana. The result was of disastrous proportions. Parents and other relatives simply gave it to their children. Its not that hard for our youth to be under the influence when there very parents or older brothers are using it. [1,2]

Alcohol's addictive rate is 10%, but illicit drug users can get addicted by a rate of 75%.

Another argument is that legalizing drugs would lower crime, but this has also proven to be false. Many studies have shown that half of all violent crime offenders were under the influence of drugs, most notably marijuana, when they committed their crimes. In some cases there is a far majority of crimes that are committed involving the influence of marijuana. It also increases the number of DUI's by a wide margin. It rose as high as 40% for adults and 70% for juveniles in California and that is clearly a disaster. Taxation also creates a rise in the black market. [3,4]

We also have to mention the economic factors. Because the black market will receive a boom from marijuana users, tax revenue will not increase. More DUI's means the possibility of more deaths. More deaths means less population growth which means less economic growth as population growth leads to urbanization and ultimately benefits the world. Current legal drugs actually cost over $100 billion in productivity and alcohol causes $13 billion. Tobacco has similar negative effects. [4]

Prohibition has Failed

My opponent's arguments here are strage. Murder is illegal too, but that doesn't mean people are still murder. In fact, some of those people that are murdered might be killed by drug users. You never know. In fact, read this after alcohol was legalized again:

"Following the repeal of prohibition, alcohol consumption increased. Prohibition did not end alcohol use, but it did succeed in reducing, by one-third, the consumption of a product that had wide historical and popular sanction." [1]

Government's Place

"John Adams, who helped draft the Constitution and later became our second president, declared, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly moral considerations. Our elected representatives are therefore bound to legislate morality." [1]

Conclusion

I have proven that my opponent's points on legalizing marijuana are wrong that it would create a negative effect on society. Crime has decreased from marijuana prohibition and it is government's place to legislative morality.Sources

First off, I provided the format I did for a reason. The topic of marijuana'slegalization has many subjects, and my provided format allowed for each subjectto be discussed specifically, and ultimately provide an overall view of thetopic for the voters. It also eliminates the necessity of quoting your opponentas that wastes text space (which I often need). In addition, you do not addressmany of points, and as stated earlier, I will assume you either agree with thatpoint or cannot refute it should you fail to do so. I once again ask that youfollow my format. Finally, when citing sources, please specify the exact portionof the source you would like to use for large sources instead of simply postingan entire article. This allows for clearer communication. The video to theright is my source (3).

Point 1a"Back in the 1800s when most drugs were legal, marijuana was clearlyvery addictive." Yet you fail to provide any support for this. One canalso say that in the 1800's the sky was pink. Furthermore, I already saidthat I do not wish to discuss drugs, only marijuana. Therefore any data notspecifying marijuana is not valid in this argument. "Alcohol's addictiverate is 10%, but illicit drug users can get addicted by a rate of 75%."Although this "statistic" includes all illicit drugs and has nosupport, I will respond because the same principles apply regardless of thedrug. Comparing the "addictive rate" of one drug (alcohol) with many(illicit drugs) is not proportional, besides this; there are two reasons forthe supposed results. The first is that while illegal, the general use of adrug is increased (3). Secondly, when an illicit drug user is arrested(marijuana users more so than other illegal drug users), the courts often givethem a choice between a harsh sentence or treatment and a slap on the wrist.Obviously they are going to choose treatment, and they are then labeledaddicts. After all, they are in treatment for drug use right?

Point 1f"Then there was the experiment in Alaska." Actually, the lawwas not that anyone under 19 could not consume cannabis, rather, it stated thatthe possession of 1 ounce or less would not receive criminal penalties such asarrest (this is decriminalization not legalization). With regards to youthaccess, it is clearly easier for youth to get marijuana now because all theyhave to do is call a dealer (which isn't hard to find) and have the necessaryfunds. However, once legal, it would be taken out the hands of street dealersand be regulated; both similarly to alcohol (refer to point 2f to argue thisstatement). Then the only access would be in stores that enforce the age restrictionand require identification, which naturally makes it much harder to obtain. Onthe other hand, decriminalization (such as the Alaskan experiment) does notregulate cannabis, it only reduces penalties for use which obviously will notreduce and may even increase youth use. My source comments similarly on this(1). Also, we already have an example of the success of more sensible cannabispolicies with regards to use youth in the Netherlands (2).

Point 2aFirstly, there is no evidence or reason to believe that legalization would givea "boom" to the black market. And, in actuality, we already havereason to believe the exact opposite of this claim (3). Also, I address the DUIclaim in a following point. The economic statistics of alcohol and tobacco areirrelevant with regards to marijuana's potential to bring in revenue,especially since we already have studies estimating the financial benefits ofcannabis (6).

Point 2c"It also increases the number of DUI's by a wide margin. It rose ashigh as 40% for adults and 70% for juveniles in California and that is clearlya disaster." Yet again, I am discussing marijuana only. However itshould be noted that the statistics my opponent is referring to are resulting fromdecriminalization only and I have already addressed this. "Californiadecriminalized marijuana 1976, and, within the first six months, arrests fordriving under the influence of drugs rose 46 percent for adults and 71.4percent for juveniles." This quote is from my opponent's own source[4]. Also, we have reliable reason to believe the opposite (7).

Point 2e"Many studies have shown that half of all violent crime offenders wereunder the influence of drugs, most notably marijuana, when they committed theircrimes." With regards to marijuana, testing for use is FAR fromconclusive. Testing positive for cannabis only proves that the user had used itwithin a certain amount of time, varying time frames existing for the differentmethods. Only blood testing has the potential to detect active THC metabolites,the time frame of which is about 5 hours (4). Blood testing is, however, anexpensive and invasive form of testing that is rarely used. Since it cannot bedetermined that all of the subjects in the "studies" were given bloodtest within the necessary time frame to show active THC metabolites, it followsthat it cannot be determined that the provided statistics are reliable oraccurate. This is mainly because many such studies erroneously consider thepresence of THC metabolites alone (those not active) evidence of intoxication(similarly to the unjust drug testing that plague our nation). Even still,given that there is no conclusive evidence that marijuana causes criminalactivity, assuming that it does is logic parallel with a logical fallacy, (lookit up if you don't know what that is) faulty cause number one (5).Consequently, the implication that legalization of marijuana would increasecrime has no basis. Also, my source further refutes this (3).

Point 3a"Murder is illegal too, but that doesn't mean people are still murder." The main difference between murder and marijuana is that murder is an act and marijuana is a good. As my source (3) supports, any illicit good with demand is increased by prohibition because of demand and despite enforcement. While an act has no demand, therefore, it necessarily goes down following prohibition, due to enforcement.

Point 3c"Following the repeal of prohibition, alcohol consumption increased." Your point here is invalid since your source [1] was notfound.

Point 4aUsing your quote as a point is a fallacy. Number fourteen appeal to authority (5). And, looking at the facts behind cannabis prohibition, "legislating morality" would coincide with legalizing marijuana.

ConclusionResponseMy opponent has proved nothing. He tries to "morph" my arguments tofit his argumentative goals. Furthermore he attempts to use statistics with allillegal drugs to provide unreliable and inaccurate predictions of the effectmarijuana's legalization would have on the nation. I leave it to my opponent toaddress the points he ignored should he choose to.

My RefutationsThe Format"First off, I provided the format I did for a reason. The topic of marijuana'slegalization has many subjects, and my provided format allowed for each subject"

At the same times, you have addressed far too many topics at once for anyone to go into possible detail on any of them. I have looked at several of your debates and none of them seem really that serious for any past reference. In fact, you even exploit how bad your format is with this sentence in another debate:

"Unfortunately, I must address your last few statements in a following post due to text limitations." [1]

This is the major problem with your format. You should not have to address topics from one round in another round. Your given a generous amount of characters to deal with this and you are forced to use more than this limit with the several topics. In no other debate about marijuana have seen this kind of format because debaters no it creates a negative effect. Because of this I will not follow your format and will stay on my own.

By generalizing, this helps me because some of the counter arguments I put in overlap. That is why I will not specify what specific argument, as I am countering all arguments. Finally, you asked me to specify the exact portion of the source. This also takes up characters, so my response is no.

Negative Effects and Positive Effects

"Yet you fail to provide any support for this. One can also say that in the 1800's the sky was pink. Furthermore, I already said that I do not wish to discuss drugs, only marijuana."

Marijuana is one of the drugs when they looked into it and they found that it is addictive.

"The first is that while illegal, the general use of a drug is increased (3)."

This is incorrect because the cost of committing the crime creates deterrence from using a drug, specifically marijuana. Without these in place then more people would use the marijuana. [2]

Besides being strongly addictive, it is very toxic. As said here:

“The scientists found that ammonia levels were 20 times higher in the marijuana smoke than in the tobacco smoke, while hydrogen cyanide, nitric oxide and certain aromatic amines occurred at levels 3-5 times higher in the marijuana smoke, they say. The finding is “important information for public health and communication of the risk related to exposure to such materials.” [3]

As for the experiment in Alaska, I am arguing that marijuana must stay criminalized, so because it was decriminalized I must argue the negative effects of that since that is a step toward legalization. My opponent even admitted that it gave individuals the right to own an ounce or less. However, the fact remained that it was regulated and anyone under 19 could not own it. Nevertheless, youths had more access after decriminalization. This justifies why marijuana must remain criminalized.

Onto the black market. My opponent here is just simply wrong. Maybe he does not know what taxes is. Say I tax the product by 400%, now what are the chances people are going to purchase it legally? They would prefer to buy it on the black market. It is illogical to say taxation or regulation would make the price the same as its price during prohibition. Look at this:

"Amsterdam’s experience is already being duplicated in California under the current medical marijuana statute. In Los Angeles, police report that areas surrounding cannabis clubs have experienced a 200 percent increase in robberies, a 52.2 percent increase in burglaries, a 57.1 percent increase in aggravated assault, and a 130.8 percent increase in burglaries from automobiles. Current law requires a doctor’s prescription to procure marijuana; full legalization would likely spark an even more acute increase in crime." [4]

The Netherlands is not as great as people think it is.

Also on the DUI's, that was specifically marijuana only, just to clear up the confusion. My opponent seems to think itsw something else. Again, I am defending criminalization like I said before. The fact that the marijuana was decriminalized means that it is a step toward legalization. Marijuana is one of the numerous illegalized drugs. I have already explained the increased toxication as well. In fact, in the Netherlands:

"The increasing use of marijuana is responsible for more than increased crime. It has widespread when minor possession of all drugs was social implications as well. The head of Holland’s decriminalized. best-known drug abuse rehabilitation center has described what the new drug culture has created: The strong form of marijuana that most of the young people smoke, he says, produces "a chronically passive individual—someone who is lazy, who doesn’t want to take initiatives, doesn’t want to be active—the kid who’d prefer to lie in bed with a joint in the morning rather than getting up and doing something." [2]

Prohibition has Failed"The main difference between murder and marijuana is that murder is an act and marijuana is a good. As my source (3) supports, any illicit good with demand is increased by prohibition because of demand and despite enforcement. While an act has no demand, therefore, it necessarily goes down following prohibition, due to enforcement."

Murder and marijuana are still both largely illegal, but people will always break that law. Its irrelevant that one is a good and one is not. Also, drug use has gone down massively:

"The facts are to the contrary to such pessimism. On the demand side, the U.S. has reduced casual use, chronic use and addiction, and prevented others from even starting using drugs. Overall drug use in the United States is down by more than a third since the late 1970s. That’s 9.5 million people fewer using illegal drugs." [2]

Finally:

"Your point here is invalid since your source [1] was not found."

I have that source downloaded. I am also a historian and the fact is prohibition was more succesful than you think. Alcohol ownership after prohibition was still down and never reached the levels before the Volstead Act until the 1960s-1970s. It did work to an extent. Today we are more efficient and prohibition of drugs has continued to work. So I can use the source because I have it downloaded. You just simply cannot find it, but that makes no difference.

Government's Place

My opponent's source is just simply wrong. This is a direct quote from one of the Founding Fathers. Legislating morality is basically legislating right and wrong. Since marijuana is wrong and bad conduct, it must be kept illegal. As put forward by one of DDO's greatest users:

"The constitution embodies a code of conduct put forward by the founding fathers and embody their subjective views, and the amendments embody codes of conduct put forward by subsequent Congresses and embody their subjective views, and the amendments were validated by Supreme court justices in various court decisions whenever applicable, and thus embody their subjective views. This code of conduct, this subjective morality, is the law under which we abide, else we face some form of punishment from the state." [5]

I am going to ignore your pathetic attempt to discredit me by pointing to my past debates and let that action speak for itself. However, I will point out that in order to have a complete understanding of the topic of marijuana legalization, all of these (and possibly more) subjects must be discussed regardless of debate.org's text limit. And seeing as how in many of my debates, even one without the format, I have encountered text limitation problems, I'd say the character amount is far from generous. And what does it matter if one round's subject must be addressed in another? Is there a rule against this? In typical prohibitionist fashion, you insist on generalizing in order to hide the topics which you do not or cannot address (because you do not address all of them). Also, the amount of characters necessary to point to at least the page of a provided article is negligible, yet you act as if it would ruin your arguments. You even ignore many of my arguments from the previous round that refute your arguments and continue on to repeat yours. Because of these deceitful strategies, I ask that you never accept any of my debate challenges again.The videos to my right are my sources (3) (4) and (5) respectively.

"Marijuana is one of the drugs when they looked into it and they found that it is addictive."You still fail to provide support for your claim. Let me show you why you must support such claims: I know of a study that proves your exact study wrong, they showed how your studies methods were inefficient and how the conductors of the studies had alternative motives.

"This is incorrect because the cost of committing the crime creates deterrence from using a drug, specifically marijuana. Without these in place then more people would use the marijuana. [2]"Firstly, your article provides no support to your claim with regards to fully legalized and integrated marijuana. Simultaneously, my source (that you ignored in your entire response) uses real world economics and examples to support the opposite of your claim. Secondly, your source comes from the DEA, an amoral government agency that profits from the illegal drug trade and would lose billions upon marijuana (and other drug) legalization. "With taxed and regulated marijuana, federal and state governments would suddenly free up $26 billion spent annually on the failed drug war" (1). They destroy lives and harm innocents (even children) to combat the growing support and acceptance of integrated marijuana and keep it illegal (source (1) second paragraph). They support marijuana remaining a schedule 1 drug although marijuana is the exact opposite, and opposes any legitimate research (2). Furthermore the head of the agency refuses to answer simple questions regarding the topic and provides incredible inconsistencies in her responses (3) (4). Are the articles, sources, and claims of such an agency even credible? My source however comes from non-biased third parties (5).

"The finding is “important information for public health and communication of the risk related to exposure to such materials.” [3]" Assuming the validity of these studies, they are irrelevant since it is impossible to die from smoking marijuana (6). In addition, it stands that any legitimate health risks from marijuana occur only in those with a predisposed disposition towards the health risk. And, you have failed to support your allegations with regards to addiction.

"As for the experiment in Alaska, I am arguing that marijuana must stay criminalized, so because it was decriminalized I must argue the negative effects of that since that is a step toward legalization." Your argument here is invalid for a few reasons. I created this debate and stated that it was for legalization not decriminalization and you accepted. Secondly, it is wholly irrelevant whether or not decriminalization is "a step towards legalization" or not. They are two different policies with completely different effects on society (as we can see in the Netherlands (7)). Finally, I made no such claim and nothing has been justified.

"Say I tax the product by 400%, now what are the chances people are going to purchase it legally?" We have no reason to believe such an absurd estimation of marijuana's would be tax rate. This is especially true since we have legal drugs (tobacco and alcohol) with reasonable and accepted tax rates.

As for your source [4] reference. There is no evidence supporting that cannabis had any influence on these supposed increases, therefore the claim has no weight.

"Also on the DUI's, that was specifically marijuana only" irrelevant since you have ignored my previous arguments regarding marijuana and DUI's, likely attempting to draw attention away from it.

"Again, I am defending criminalization" already addressed.

"The strong form of marijuana that most of the young people smoke, he says, produces "a chronically passive individual—someone who is lazy, who doesn’t want to take initiatives, doesn’t want to be active." Since there is no evidence or suggestion that this supposed effect is permanent, it is only common sense to recognize that this supposed effect last only during intoxication. Additionally, that is a subjective analysis from an individual. And, once again, the DEA reference's credibility is in question.

"It’s irrelevant that one is a good and one is not." Why is it irrelevant when a good with demand is objectively known to increase in prevalence following prohibition (5), while an act merely goes down due to enforcement? Please do not ignore my source on this matter.

"Overall drug use in the United States is down by more than a third since the late 1970s. That’s 9.5 million people fewer using illegal drugs. [2]" Once again, assuming there validity, these statistics are for all drugs and fail to give an accurate account for marijuana use alone (since that is what we are debating). And I have touched on the credibility of any DEA source.

"I have that source downloaded. I am also a historian and the fact is prohibition was more succesful than you think." I also have a source downloaded proving the existence of orange, intelligent elephants living on mars. I am also an astronaut and the fact is there is more alien life out there than you think. Please provide sources for such claims.

"Since marijuana is wrong and bad conduct, it must be kept illegal." Why exactly is it wrong and "bad conduct" (fix your grammar there)?

"My opponent's source is just simply wrong. This is a direct quote from one of the Founding Fathers." Wow, I am honestly surprised by your ignorance and attempt to legitimately pass a fallacy in a debate. You then proceed to use that same exact fallacy as support. Please explain how a site that merely list and describes the various fallacies is wrong? Perhaps you don't know what a fallacy is so I will define it. "Any of various types of erroneous reasoning that render arguments logically unsound" (8). I will provide another site stating the same thing since you didn't seem to like the other one (9). Your fallacy is the third one down, argument from authority. I need not address your quote from "one of DDO's greatest users" as it is also an argument from authority.

Because of some personal issues I cannot continue this quite lengthy debate. Me and my opponent have been having a conversation in private messaging and we have agreed to end this debate here in order to avoid a forfeit. Don't vote in this debate as it should end in a tie.

I agreed to no such thing. My opponent claims to be unable to argue due to personal issues, and is consequently forfeiting the debate. I ask that voters vote on the rounds debated should they decide to vote.

Original RFD: Conduct is given to Con due to Pro's rude and unnecessary aggression in round 3 (perhaps due to the peace-causing effects of marijuana use, ja?), and furthermore because Con generally comported himself in a politer fashion than Pro. Spelling and Grammar goes to Pro because of Con's inability to correctly use "there," "their," and "they're," which was confusing and made some of his arguments almost illegible. Convincing arguments goes to Pro because of the number of unrefuted points that Con poorly addressed, many of which were addressed by straw men and technicalities. I seriously considered tying this point because, as Con pointed out, Pro was dishonest in formatting. Reliable sources is tied because, while Pro certainly used more sources, many were duplicated, and many were videos (which I don't consider reliable sources). Con specifically requested that I counter a votebomb on here, and attempt to return the vote to a tie. Due to Pro's denial, I will withhold that until screenshot.

Nothing con has posted supports his claims. None of his provided dialogue portrays me accepting a tie. When I said I didn't care it was directed to his claims of having personal problems which prevent him from debating. I again ask potential voters to vote on the rounds debated.

There's a lot of pictures that I would have t take if I was to zoom in, but to make a long story short I will post

After so of the arguing in the issue I said:

"What do you mean? I said I can't debate right now because I'm very busy at home. I just want you to agree because that is the respectful thing to do. I don't want to forfeit a debate because that's not a nice way to leave."

His response was that he didn't believe me, but he also said he wouldn't care. So the tie is supposed to happen. I don't know why Thugz is lying.

As you see here my opponent is clear lying. I will post more of the pm later today, but Fictional Truths has until the end if the day to remove that vote into a tie or I will find someone to counter vote it.

Reasons for voting decision: I don't really care to get into the controversy over "who said what", but what I do know is that even if Thugzbunny is correct on this Fictional Truth's vote was still a votebomb because he provided no proper explanation for his vote.